Welcome to 'Lost in the Myths of History'

It often seems that many prominent people of the past are wronged by often-repeated descriptions, which in time are taken as truth. The same is also true of events, which are frequently presented in a particular way when there might be many alternative viewpoints. This blog is intended to present a different perspective on those who have often been lost in the myths of history.

Wednesday, 13 June 2012

Hypocrisy and Vanity

I think it was Henry Fielding in ‘Joseph Andrews’ who pointed out the
difference between vanity and hypocrisy. Vanity, he said, involved a person
doing good in order to be seen and praised; hypocrisy involved a person doing
evil under the guise of good. The definitions came to mind as I began to
discover more about the so-called American Red Cross mission to Russia in 1917.

Surprisingly, this ‘mission’ of 24 people comprised only 4 doctors and the rest were financiers, photographers and lawyers, and the mission leaders lived in the most expensive hotels, taking
photographs and, no doubt, eyeing the resources of the country to which they had
not had access under the Tsar.

In fact that mission, financed by J.P. Morgan (and probably donations from the sincere and well-meaning American people), had very little to do with
the American Red Cross, which was actively working in a far more constructive
way in various other countries. This mission, however, had a very different
agenda – that of the Wall Street bankers and international financiers who had
been involved in prolonging the war for financial gain, for access to the
Russian oilfields and, of course, as part of their plan to dismantle all the
autocracies of Europe.

Calling this the ‘American’ Red Cross Mission is as greater a misnomer as
calling it a ‘Red Cross’ mission, since this had very little to do with the
American people at all. It is interesting that until the end of 1916 and the
beginning of 1917 most Americans were (naturally!!) eager to stay out of the war
that was raging in Europe. Woodrow Wilson was re-elected on his campaign slogan,
“He kept us out of the war...” Moreover, most of the newspapers favoured the
Central Powers over the Entente Powers and were largely pro-German. A German
submarine managed to evade the British blockade to make its way to America where
it was greeted with great applause and amply supplied for its return journey.
Suddenly, however, the press, owned by the same financier families, changed
their tune, as did President Wilson, and Germany was now the enemy and Wilson
came out with his statement about wanting to ‘make the world safe for
democracy’. The excuse was Germany’s employment of unrestricted submarine
warfare but the Kaiser had suspended this for a long time believing that Woodrow
Wilson would put pressure on the British to stop their illegal blockage, which
was leading to starvation for the people of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Woodrow
Wilson refused to intervene but even when unrestricted submarine warfare
was unleashed, the Germans allowed for the free passage of ships between Britain
and America twice a week, and ordered U-boat captains to give plenty of warning
to allow ships to be evacuated and passengers taken to safety before sinking
them. A huge propaganda campaign began in America stating that the Kaiser wished
to take over the world! Ironic, considering that Wilson’s real motive
for dragging the American people into the war was to have a say in the peace
negotiations which would involve the dismantling of empires (particularly
Austria-Hungary), destroying all autocracies and imposing a new world order on
just about everyone!

Germany was an autocracy but it was a very prosperous nation and had
introduced Labour Laws, retirement pensions, sick pay and other benefits for
workers long before anyone else did. What became of Wilson’s idea to ‘make
democracy safe for everyone’? A grand imposing idea that led to Hitler, Stalin and Trotsky (who, incidentally, had
been driving round New York in a limousine before setting sail for Russia, and
was released from captivity in Canada on the orders of Britain and America so
that he could continue the revolution in Russia) and Lenin, who – great
socialist that he was! – had been living in relative luxury in Switzerland
before being funded by the financier Jacob Schiff and others, to cause such
disruption in Russia.

Everything....everything we were taught about the First World War is a
great myth and one that involves a good deal of hypocrisy! This is but the tip
of the iceberg. I would go so far as to say that up until that time, it was the
great crime ever committed against humanity, the greatest con in history and
even to this day people believe the lie that it was an Imperial War led by kings
and emperors.

What was it Fielding said about the difference between
hypocrisy and vanity?

5 comments:

Further irony: the peace treaty of St Germain en Laye - a k f retirement place of Venerable James VII and II of Scotland and England, King and Pentitent - twice calls Austrian Empire agressor, for doing after the murder of Prince Francis Ferdinand what US did themselves to Afghanistan after Twin Towers. And mind you, there are no "truthers" claiming Gavril Princip was really and Austrian agent.

Thank you for posting the defence of Austria!

I am less positive about Prussia. Much less. Prosperous, yes, but Bismarck had done the work against Napoleon III which WW was doing against the Kaiser (Ems Telegram), and before that they had started their war against the real greater Germany to honour the "sacrifice" of a kamikaze in the Danish German war. Besides, they launched Lenin onto the Czar in that train.

Thank you Hans-Georg. I am not convinced that Gavril Princip was simply who he was supposed to be. Why would an elite group of officers, lawyers etc. employ a student who had never fired a gun before? I believe that Princip believed he was working for the 'Black Hand' but was, in fact, set up by some other more shady group, which was active not only in Austria but throughout Europe (and America). I agree with you about Bismarck. I think he 'played' Kaiser Wilhelm I and was a ruthless, arch-manipulator, who also caused a lot of trouble in an underhand way for Emperor Franz Josef. Hindenburg, Ludendorff and Zimmermann were equally untrustworthy but the Kaiser himself had nothing to do with allowing Lenin to pass through Germany (and how wonderful that Emperor Karl of Austria absolutely refused to allow him to pass through Austria!). So much was carried out secretly that it is difficult to sort through the lies and deceit and get to the truth...and it seems the truth is very, very different from how it is usually presented!I am English (and my grandparents and great uncles were involved in WW1)but I feel very strongly that they were deceived and that the Central Powers were manipulated along with all the ordinary people of all the combattant nations. Thank you for commenting!